Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Falcon Jedi Knight

Matt Ryan is not a Franchise QB according to Bucky Brooks NFL.com

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Bigbenright said:

I do not see him as a hater. I see him as dumb. He and you are entitled to your opinions of course (does not need to be said). For Bayliss to not give Ryan credit for his play in the SB is also dumb. His QB rating in that SB was one of the highest ever if I remember correctly. Ryan made the pass to JJ that should have won the SB if not for poor play calling.

Bayless did give him credit for the first 3 quarters. He just believe that Ryan is not the guy to win the SB, which is correct. So he was skeptical of Ryan. He acknowledged that Ryan did well but then reverted back to his old self. Now I disagree with Bayless on this because the Falcons Oline started getting injured in the 2nd half, and like always, just like this year BTW, their depth sucks. So the second a starter got hurt, the offense halted. Ryan has done better moving around the pocket since then, but during 2016, Ryan thrived with the great protection. That protection breaks down, so does Ryan's game. The point that Bayless and Brooks make is that guys like Brady and Rodgers can carry their team behind crap lines, crap RBs, and with crap WRs. While they both acknowledge that Ryan is a great QB, they just don't think Ryan is that great to do the same. So far, they have been right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

I do.

In that case are any of those other QBs on Bucky,s list Franchise QBs? Why are they rated above Ryan. Some of them won SBs because of their defenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bigbenright said:

In that case are any of those other QBs on Bucky,s list Franchise QBs? Why are they rated above Ryan. Some of them won SBs because of their defenses.

Being a franchise QB doesn't mean they have won a SB. They mean that a QB gives his team a chance to win despite the talent around him vs a QB doing great BECAUSE the talent around him. Usually they just mean offense only. So they are not talking about the D. So they are talking about QBs who can get their team to consistently score. So take Rodgers, He is capable of doing that and in the team playoff losses the team gave up 34 points on average. So he can get the team to score but not enough to compensate for the D.

I think Falcon fans see this as great vs not great when in the commentators views it's more like great vs next level great. Also don't assume I agree with Bucky's list. But that is what his idea is of a franchise QB. We seen Ryan do great, but we haven't seen him take over a game without the great weapons he has. I think that is what keeps people skeptical of him in that regard. However I disagree with people, fans and commentators alike, since I don't think it is about the weapons but the Oline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

Bayless did give him credit for the first 3 quarters. He just believe that Ryan is not the guy to win the SB, which is correct. So he was skeptical of Ryan. He acknowledged that Ryan did well but then reverted back to his old self. Now I disagree with Bayless on this because the Falcons Oline started getting injured in the 2nd half, and like always, just like this year BTW, their depth sucks. So the second a starter got hurt, the offense halted. Ryan has done better moving around the pocket since then, but during 2016, Ryan thrived with the great protection. That protection breaks down, so does Ryan's game. The point that Bayless and Brooks make is that guys like Brady and Rodgers can carry their team behind crap lines, crap RBs, and with crap WRs. While they both acknowledge that Ryan is a great QB, they just don't think Ryan is that great to do the same. So far, they have been right.

Brady is the only exception. He is the GOAT. Rodgers is great but he has not elevated his team the last few years with lesser talent or injuries. He makes incredible plays but he too has not overcome injuries of his teammates in big games the last few years except that one SB year. Bees is also great but cannot play QB and CB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bigbenright said:

Brady is the only exception. He is the GOAT. Rodgers is great but he has not elevated his team the last few years with lesser talent or injuries. He makes incredible plays but he too has not overcome injuries of his teammates in big games the last few years except that one SB year. Bees is also great but cannot play QB and CB.

The way I see it, if you were to swap QBs with teams, how would you project them doing. So if Rodgers was in Atlanta and Ryan was in GB, would Atlanta improve or get worse? What about GB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

Bayless did give him credit for the first 3 quarters. He just believe that Ryan is not the guy to win the SB, which is correct. So he was skeptical of Ryan. He acknowledged that Ryan did well but then reverted back to his old self. Now I disagree with Bayless on this because the Falcons Oline started getting injured in the 2nd half, and like always, just like this year BTW, their depth sucks. So the second a starter got hurt, the offense halted. Ryan has done better moving around the pocket since then, but during 2016, Ryan thrived with the great protection. That protection breaks down, so does Ryan's game. The point that Bayless and Brooks make is that guys like Brady and Rodgers can carry their team behind crap lines, crap RBs, and with crap WRs. While they both acknowledge that Ryan is a great QB, they just don't think Ryan is that great to do the same. So far, they have been right.

our o line depth this yr probably the best its been in decades. mack was on one leg the whole game than got hurt worse. it wasnt just one lineman that went down in the big game it was I think 2 more that got knicked up pretty good, including our second best player on the line in andy levitre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jdawg4876 said:

our o line depth this yr probably the best its been in decades. mack was on one leg the whole game than got hurt worse. it wasnt just one lineman that went down in the big game it was I think 2 more that got knicked up pretty good, including our second best player on the line in andy levitre

I think you mean the 2016 Oline was the teams best Oline. If you do, I agree. Also with the 2 players getting hurt on the Oline during the SB. We both agree on this. Andy was good. I don't see it any more. Injuries have not only taking their toll but piling up. I would be extremely surprised if he lasts the year. He is 34 years old, which is usually retirement age, especially with the injuries he has. He lacks the umph he initially had. The other G is straight garbage. Mack is also getting up their in age. So he will struggle to keep healthy also. The older the players get, the harder it will be to stay in top form, and with each year, their physical abilities will deteriorate. It won't be better this year. This is the reason I hated the WR pick in the first round. I would rather have Hernandez as the pick. Not that Ridley is bad, but I think Hernandez is a better player, and fills a bigger need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

Bayless did give him credit for the first 3 quarters. He just believe that Ryan is not the guy to win the SB, which is correct. So he was skeptical of Ryan. He acknowledged that Ryan did well but then reverted back to his old self. Now I disagree with Bayless on this because the Falcons Oline started getting injured in the 2nd half, and like always, just like this year BTW, their depth sucks. So the second a starter got hurt, the offense halted. Ryan has done better moving around the pocket since then, but during 2016, Ryan thrived with the great protection. That protection breaks down, so does Ryan's game. The point that Bayless and Brooks make is that guys like Brady and Rodgers can carry their team behind crap lines, crap RBs, and with crap WRs. While they both acknowledge that Ryan is a great QB, they just don't think Ryan is that great to do the same. So far, they have been right.

When has Brady played with a crap oline!? I don't know a qb that can play with a crappy oline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

I think you mean the 2016 Oline was the teams best Oline. If you do, I agree. Also with the 2 players getting hurt on the Oline during the SB. We both agree on this. Andy was good. I don't see it any more. Injuries have not only taking their toll but piling up. I would be extremely surprised if he lasts the year. He is 34 years old, which is usually retirement age, especially with the injuries he has. He lacks the umph he initially had. The other G is straight garbage. Mack is also getting up their in age. So he will struggle to keep healthy also. The older the players get, the harder it will be to stay in top form, and with each year, their physical abilities will deteriorate. It won't be better this year. This is the reasons I hated the WR pick in the first round. I would rather have Hernandez as the pick. Not that Ridley is bad, but I think Hernandez is a better player, and fills a bigger need.

andy looked good last yr until he was hurt and looked real good against kc friday night, fusco looked good last night at rg and has a mean streak, which we need bad. centers can play at a high level for yrs look at mudd duck. so while mack is on the back 9 of his career he is still only 32, could see him play til 35. Our tackles are avg to slightly above avg. I think folks including pff over value schraeder a bit at RT bc of his rudy like story, but dude is a solid RT, and while im no huge jake matthews fan he is worlds better skill wise than larmar holmes was and he is a lot better health wise than sam walking injury baker.

But what makes this o line at least special to me is the back ups. while the 16 line was great, our back ups were a train wreck. I feel comfortable with ben garland if he has to start. wes started of terrible at rg but did get better as the yr went on. gono looks like a schrader clone to me, and while I dont want to see ty sambrillo starting he is once again a lot better than larmar holmes ever was or what would have been our back up tackle last yr in brunskil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jdawg4876 said:

andy looked good last yr until he was hurt and looked real good against kc friday night, fusco looked good last night at rg and has a mean streak, which we need bad. centers can play at a high level for yrs look at mudd duck. so while mack is on the back 9 of his career he is still only 32, could see him play til 35. Our tackles are avg to slightly above avg. I think folks including pff over value schraeder a bit at RT bc of his rudy like story, but dude is a solid RT, and while im no huge jake matthews fan he is worlds better skill wise than larmar holmes was and he is a lot better health wise than sam walking injury baker.

But what makes this o line at least special to me is the back ups. while the 16 line was great, our back ups were a train wreck. I feel comfortable with ben garland if he has to start. wes started of terrible at rg but did get better as the yr went on. gono looks like a schrader clone to me, and while I dont want to see ty sambrillo starting he is once again a lot better than larmar holmes ever was or what would have been our back up tackle last yr in brunskil

I think you are in for a big disappointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Intellectually Honest said:

I think you are in for a big disappointment.

we shall see, in fusco I see a slightly better version of chris chester. somebody that is good in the run game but is slightly better in pass protection than chester was

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 11JonesBrothers45 said:

When has Brady played with a crap oline!? I don't know a qb that can play with a crappy oline. 

More truths. You put Brady behind some our o lines then we might be talking a 30 for 30 special on how his career was cut woefully short. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 11JonesBrothers45 said:

When has Brady played with a crap oline!? I don't know a qb that can play with a crappy oline. 

Not all crappy Olines are the same. I am being relative. Anyway, the idea is franchise QBs can play behind them because of their pre-snap reads, audibles, quick release, and anticipation when throwing the football, and for the more athletic QBs, the legs to move around and buy time. As for QBs actually being able to - yes you have QBs capable of doing it. Russell Wilson last year was still able to thrive with a really crappy Oline. The guy was the leading rusher for his team, and his WRs were alright at best with no help in the running game. So this crap that no one can do it is false. It's just rare. That is why franchise QBs are rare to begin with. It's going beyond just being a great QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Intellectually Honest said:

The way I see it, if you were to swap QBs with teams, how would you project them doing. So if Rodgers was in Atlanta and Ryan was in GB, would Atlanta improve or get worse? What about GB?

The easy answer is to go for Rodgers in both instances. However, Ryan is more durable and does not get hurt as easily as Rodgers. Rodgers might not have survived our years with sorry O-lines and his career may have been curt short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

Not all crappy Olines are the same. I am being relative. Anyway, the idea is franchise QBs can play behind them because of their pre-snap reads, audibles, quick release, and anticipation when throwing the football, and for the more athletic QBs, the legs to move around and buy time. As for QBs actually being able to - yes you have QBs capable of doing it. Russell Wilson last year was still able to thrive with a really crappy Oline. The guy was the leading rusher for his team, and his WRs were alright at best with no help in the running game. So this crap that no one can do it is false. It's just rare. That is why franchise QBs are rare to begin with. It's going beyond just being a great QB.

Wilson has been improving. He won his SB with a great defense and Lynch. So who do you think are current franchise QBs with your high standards, besides the obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bigbenright said:

The easy answer is to go for Rodgers in both instances. However, Ryan is more durable and does not get hurt as easily as Rodgers. Rodgers might not have survived our years with sorry O-lines and his career may have been curt short.

Yeah Ryan is more durable. But your whole contention of him being a HOF QB, if he does, is based on longevity, and not putting up crazy stats. He is like the Jason Witten of QBs, or the analogy of the hare vs the tortoise. Ryan is a mid 20s TD guy which is nothing special in any given single year. His chance to be a HOF QB will be durability and longevity. Rodgers on the other hand will put big time stats consistently, but unlike Ryan, he will have a year or 2 when he gets hurt. Rodgers had 16 TDs playing 7 games last year when Ryan had 20 in the whole year. Rodgers is way more likely to get 35 TDs in a given year than Ryan. But Ryan is more likely to last the year. But it's not like Rodgers is injury prone either. He will get dinged up here or there.

But the idea of a Franchise QB is not based on how injury prone a guy is, unless of course they are extremely injury prone, but rather how well they will play when healthy. Even last year when Ryan had footballs deflected off of receivers hands, people just blamed the receivers and say half of his INTs were not his fault, but I disagree. Many times Ryan tends to throw jump balls. Maybe he is used to Julio out jumping a DB. But whatever the reason is, many of the times the receivers would have to stop and jump to grab the ball. If Ryan placed the ball where they didn't have to jump for it, not only would there be less balls bouncing off the fingertips of receivers, but they could catch the ball without losing a step and gain more YAC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bigbenright said:

Wilson has been improving. He won his SB with a great defense and Lynch. So who do you think are current franchise QBs with your high standards, besides the obvious?

Based on my standards there are only 3 franchise Qbs currently. Brady, Rodgers, and Wilson. I think Brees was a franchise QB, but no longer is. Luck is too injury prone. Wentz and Watson have a chance, but the injuries will get worse not better the longer they play in the NFL. To me a franchise QB is extremely rare. It's not a knock against Ryan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

Yeah Ryan is more durable. But your whole contention of him being a HOF QB, if he does, is based on longevity, and not putting up crazy stats. He is like the Jason Witten of QBs, or the analogy of the hare vs the tortoise. Ryan is a mid 20s TD guy which is nothing special in any given single year. His chance to be a HOF QB will be durability and longevity. Rodgers on the other hand will put big time stats consistently, but unlike Ryan, he will have a year or 2 when he gets hurt. Rodgers had 16 TDs playing 7 games last year when Ryan had 20 in the whole year. Rodgers is way more likely to get 35 TDs in a given year than Ryan. But Ryan is more likely to last the year. But it's not like Rodgers is injury prone either. He will get dinged up here or there.

But the idea of a Franchise QB is not based on how injury prone a guy is, unless of course they are extremely injury prone, but rather how well they will play when healthy. Even last year when Ryan had footballs deflected off of receivers hands, people just blamed the receivers and say half of his INTs were not his fault, but I disagree. Many times Ryan tends to throw jump balls. Maybe he is used to Julio out jumping a DB. But whatever the reason is, many of the times the receivers would have to stop and jump to grab the ball. If Ryan placed the ball where they didn't have to jump for it, not only would there be less balls bouncing off the fingertips of receivers, but they could catch the ball without losing a step and gain more YAC.

I was not commenting on a Franchise QB not being injury prone. I was answering your question about who would do better if they swapped teams.  

I would blame lack of TDs thrown by Ryan last year on Sark.

Last year most of those tipped interceptions were the receivers fault. They were not jump balls that were tipped.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

Based on my standards there are only 3 franchise Qbs currently. Brady, Rodgers, and Wilson. I think Brees was a franchise QB, but no longer is. Luck is too injury prone. Wentz and Watson have a chance, but the injuries will get worse not better the longer they play in the NFL. To me a franchise QB is extremely rare. It's not a knock against Ryan.

Not many NFL coaches or fans would agree with your definition/standard for a franchise QB.

Before last year I believe Wilson rarely had many 400 yard games. He is a great athlete and looked better last year but lets see him elevate Seattle to a playoff team with a lesser defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its hard bc it is a team sport. brees and ryan suffer from the same fate  a lot which is strong offenses surrounded by bad defenses. we have julio, tony g, coleman, white and others. they had sproles, ingram, colston, Jimmy G, cooks and others. saints have had historically a far better o line than us. I do think matt would do well and win a lot in boston or NO. The only team that I think would be far worse for matt is seattle he would have been mauled there and be dead and wilson would thrive here no matter what.

Everyone always talks about rodgers being the best pure qb and that might be true but I rather have wilson any day. He has a canon for an arm. can make all the throws, has great touch passes, and knows how to use his legs and when to get down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DriveHomeSafelyAtlantaWins said:

That's the dumbest list of franchise qb's I've ever seen. It has Cam and Deshaun Watson, but not Matt Ryan.

Stafford made the list based on his ability to generate game winning drives. Ummmm, hello?

Matt Ryan has QBd 27% of the franchise reg season wins and 40% of the playoff wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 8:30 PM, Intellectually Honest said:

Ignorant about what? Ryan put up big numbers one year. So he CAN do it. But that is with a great OC. He has been consistent with the yards. He has trouble in the endzone. If anything that keeps people from thinking Ryan is special is his lack of TDs, is an obvious reason why people aren't gaga over him. I criticize Ryan, but I see him improving moving the pocket around. Maybe the OC is holding him back, but lack of TD production has been something that plagued Ryan his entire career.

That's funny because Stafford, who's on Brooks list, has only one less year as a starter and 44 less TDs. Now I don't follow Stafford and I don't remember if he's had a great deal of down time, but regardless... 44 is a year plus of TDs. As a matter of fact Ryan has more TDs than a number of HOFers including Fouts, Warner, Young and a number of others. I know that some of the others were in an era where rushing was a more prominent part of the game, but the point is that Ryan shouldn't be disregarded on that stat alone. Fact is, Ryan gets dissed by the media waaaay more than he deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gp_74 said:

That's funny because Stafford, who's on Brooks list, has only one less year as a starter and 44 less TDs. Now I don't follow Stafford and I don't remember if he's had a great deal of down time, but regardless... 44 is a year plus of TDs. As a matter of fact Ryan has more TDs than a number of HOFers including Fouts, Warner, Young and a number of others. I know that some of the others were in an era where rushing was a more prominent part of the game, but the point is that Ryan shouldn't be disregarded on that stat alone. Fact is, Ryan gets dissed by the media waaaay more than he deserves.

Maybe that Stafford is trending upward from 2016 to 2017, where Ryan is trending downward. Before you get excited, I am not saying either trend cannot change. Just that people are not as high on Ryan as Falcon fans are with Ryan having a down year in 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
  • Create New...